Title CEJ Automated Probing System Is More Reliable Than Manual or The Florida Probe when Detecting Clinical Attachment Loss for Patients with Chronic Periodontitis.
Clinical Question In adult patients, is the CEJ automated probing system more reliable than Florida stent probe (FSP) and UNC-15 manual probe?
Clinical Bottom Line The CEJ automated probing system is more consistent and dependable than the Florida stent probe (FSP) or manual probing in detecting clinical attachment loss. For patients with periodontal disease, studies show that the CEJ automated probing system has a high degree of validity. This is supported by comparative studies that include both periodontally healthy and diseased patients.
Best Evidence  
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
22654322Deepa R/2012Male and Female 35-45 years of age with chronic periodontitis which is the case group, and healthy periodontal status is in the control groupComparative study
Key resultsThe CEJ automated prove displays “higher intra-and inter-examiner consistency over Florida Stent Probe (FSP) and UNC-15 manual probe in both the case and control groups.” The Florida Stent Probe (FSP) was more reproducible than the manual probe in measuring clinical attachment loss.
15016020Karpinia/200412 periodontal patients in age ranges from 22 to 74 years. Comparative study
Key resultsThere is a direct correlation between the examiner and the type of probe used. The accuracy of probing depends on the types of probe used and the expertise of the examiners. The CEJ probe exhibits a more consistent measurement of clinical attachment loss. The CEJ probe displayed “greater intra-examiner” accuracy compared to the traditional probe for two examiners, (p<0.01). Also, CEJ probe showed significant “inter-examiner consistency (p<0.01).”
Evidence Search automated[All Fields] AND probing[All Fields] AND ("manuals as topic"[Mesh Terms] OR ("manuals"[All Fields] AND "topic"[All Fields]) OR "manuals as topic"[All Fields] OR "manual"[All Fields]) AND probing[All Fields]
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: Both studies were comparative studies that measured accuracy of probing in terms of intra- and inter-examiner consistency. The probing order was randomized in both studies, and both studies included patients with chronic periodontitis and healthy patients. The Karpinia/2004 study included investigators with various levels of clinical skills, which increases the external validity of the study. In both studies, the measurements were repeated at a second visit; however, in the Karpinia/2004 study, there was only 1 week between visits Perspective: After evaluating both articles, dental hygienists are more confident that the CEJ automated probing system is consistent in evaluating clinical loss of attachment. The CEJ probe will provide excellent diagnostic results.
Applicability The evidence shows the efficiency of utilizing CEJ automated probing system in detecting clinical attachment loss in application to all periodontal patients.
Specialty (General Dentistry) (Periodontics)
Keywords Automated probing, manual probing
ID# 2910
Date of submission 12/02/2015
E-mail celestino@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Esmera Celestino
Co-author(s) Zaira Gonzalez
Co-author(s) e-mail gonzalezz@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Faculty mentor Melanie Taverna, RDH
Faculty mentor e-mail taverna@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
None available